Stories from Slatehttp://www.slate.com/all.fulltext.christina_sommers.rss
Stories from SlateGuys Who Do Housework Get Less Sexhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/03/28/guys_who_do_housework_get_less_sex.html
<p>It may be gratifying for women to see their husbands loading the dishwasher or folding laundry, but is it sexy? Yes, according to many media stories. “Men: Want More Sex? Do the Laundry” was headline of a 2009 <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500156_162-3253246.html">report</a> from CBS News. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyLSstqMvH8">According</a> to Naomi Wolf, “research has shown that the most erotic thing a man can do for a woman is the dishes.” Sheryl Sandberg, the author of <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385349947/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0385349947&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=slatmaga-20">Lean In</a>, </em>agrees. “Nothing is sexier” she says, than a man who wants to do his share of the housework. “It may be counterintuitive,” writes Sandberg, “but the best way for a man to make a pass at his wife is to do the dishes.” Sandberg urges readers to check out a “fabulous little book” called <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0811855511/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0811855511&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=slatmaga-20">Porn for Women</a> </em>produced by<em> </em>the<em> </em>Cambridge Women’s Pornography Cooperative. It is full of images of hunky guys vacuuming, dusting, and cleaning the kitty litter.&nbsp;</p>
<p>But now a new study in the <em><a href="http://m.asr.sagepub.com/content/78/1/26">American Sociological Review</a></em> casts doubt on the truth of this happy feminist idyll. Men routinely doing “female” chores appear to have less—not more—sex. According to the authors, Sabino Kornrich (Center for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, Madrid), Julie Brines (University of Washington), and Katrina Leupp (University of Washington):</p>
<p>Couples in which men participate more in housework typically done by women report having sex less frequently. Similarly, couples in which men participate more in traditionally masculine tasks—such as yard work, paying bills, and auto maintenance—report higher sexual frequency.</p>
<p>The three researchers looked at data from a nationally representative sample of 4,500 heterosexual married couples from the U.S. National Survey of Families and Households, 1992–1994—the most recent large-scale study measuring household chores, sexual frequency, and marital satisfaction.</p>
<p>Men in the study reported having had sex an average of 5.2 times in the month prior to the survey, while women reported 5.6 times on average. But both men and women in couples with more gender-traditional divisions of household labor reported having had more sex than those with more egalitarian divisions.</p>
<p>In marriages where women performed all the typically female tasks (cleaning, cooking, shopping—called “core work” by the researchers), couples had sex 1.6 times more per month than couples where men carried out all these traditionally female chores. In marriages where men helped out but stuck to stereotypical male tasks (“non-core” work such automobile maintenance, yard work, bill-paying, and snow shoveling), couples had sex 0.7 times more than those where women performed the traditional male tasks. But, as the researchers point out, even in&nbsp;marriages&nbsp;where men did 40 percent of the &quot;female&quot; chores, couples experience &quot;substantially&nbsp;lower&nbsp;sexual frequency than&nbsp;households&nbsp;in which women perform all the core [typically female]&nbsp;chores.&quot; Put simply: There appears to be an inverse relationship between husbands doing traditionally female tasks and sexual frequency.</p>
<p>The researchers considered the possibility that traditional couples have more sex because the husband is coercive. They ruled this out because wives in conventional marriages report similar levels of sexual satisfaction as those in more egalitarian marriages. As lead author Sabino Kornrich notes, “Had satisfaction with sex been low, but frequency high, it might have suggested coercion. However, we didn't find that.”&nbsp;&nbsp;They also controlled for variables such as religion, age, gender ideology, income, and participation in paid labor. “If anything surprised us,” author Julie Brines told reporters, “it was how robust the connection was between traditional division of labor and sexual frequency.”</p>
<p>Critics of the study point out that it is based on data from the early 1990s.&nbsp;&nbsp;Husbands and wives are different today, they say. As Montclair State University sociologist told&nbsp;<em>Live Science,</em>&nbsp;today’s younger generation is more comfortable with fluid definitions of gender. “Gender roles around housework and child care have been slow to change, but I think it's na&iuml;ve to think they haven't changed in the last 20 years,&quot; But the latest&nbsp;&nbsp;<u>research&nbsp;</u>&nbsp; shows little change in husband’s participation in core housework in the past two decades:&nbsp;<u>Sociologists</u>&nbsp;refer to this lack of change as the “stalled revolution.”&nbsp;&nbsp;What is most striking about today’s younger generation is not that men are adopting more &quot;fluid definitions of gender&quot; and becoming more engaged in core housework—it is that millions of fathers are not in the home at all. &nbsp;</p>
<p>Where did the myth originate about husbands who do laundry getting more sex ?The authors explain that the misleading media accounts are based on research that failed to take into account&nbsp;<em>how</em>&nbsp;couples divide household chores. While it may be true that men helping around the house increases sexual frequency—how men help makes a difference. Maintaining the car, mowing the lawn or shoveling snow seem to&nbsp;be&nbsp;more arousing than ironing or shopping for dust ruffles.&nbsp;According to the authors, among heterosexual couples, expressions of sexual difference create sexual desire. Gender-linked tasks are far more sexually charged than prominent egalitarians like Naomi Wolf and Sheryl Sandberg would have us believe.</p>
<p>&nbsp;Does this mean husbands can behave like slobs and let their wives do all the washing, cleaning, cooking, and shopping?&nbsp; Definitely not. &nbsp;The authors warn that a man who refuses to help out with core chores is likely to create strife and conflict in the marriage. And with so many women working full-time, what might be best for a couple’s romantic life may be unworkable and unfair in real life.”&nbsp;Each couple will have to work it out for themselves. Not an easy task.&nbsp;Egalitarian&nbsp;“peer marriages” where couples share all domestic tasks equally can be quite happy, report the authors—though they tend to take on a “sibling-like” tonality that “undermines sexual desire.”</p>
<p>What’s a couple to do?&nbsp;This new article is part of the solution. It is a helpful reminder that the sexes are not interchangeable. Couples need to know this. The authors don’t say so, but men and women, taken as a group, don’t merely find conventional sex roles exciting—many seem to like those traditional roles as well.&nbsp;Cheryl Mendelson, author of<u>Home Comforts: The Art and Science of Keeping House,&nbsp;</u>has a Ph.D. in philosophy and a J.D from Harvard Law, but she confesses to leading a “secret life” as an old-fashioned “housewife.” She adds that the pleasure and comfort of homemaking are “central to my character.”&nbsp; Few men view homemaking as central to their character—but millions of women do. Males are not the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.mni.com/pdfs/media_kit/mediakit.pdf">market</a>&nbsp;for&nbsp;<em>Family Circle</em>,&nbsp;<em>Better Homes and Gardens</em>, or<em>MarthaStewart.com.</em>&nbsp;A few months ago I found myself at Calico Corners—a fabric store outside DC. The shop was full of purposeful, engaged women busily looking for materials for window treatments and cushion fabrics. In the middle of the store there were some easy chairs filled with a few dazed men waiting patiently to be released. Men have a far more tenuous relationship with housecraft than women.</p>
<p>Some will read these generalizations and cry, “Sexism!” or “Essentialism!” So let’s be clear about what these group comparisons mean. I am talking about statistical averages, not absolutes. Clearly, not all men and women embody the stereotypes of their sex.&nbsp;Though they are not typical, there are women who dislike homemaking and would far prefer reading&nbsp;<em>Popular Mechanics</em>&nbsp;over&nbsp;<em>Traditional Home</em>; and there are men who enjoy many aspects of homemaking. No doubt, there are women for whom nothing is sexier than the sight of their husbands doing the dishes. But, as the new article in the&nbsp;<em>American</em>&nbsp;<em>Sociological Review</em>&nbsp;reminds us, they are a distinct minority.&nbsp;&nbsp;In our search for a solution to the work/life balance conundrum, it is best to begin by telling the truth about who we are.</p>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:20:16 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/03/28/guys_who_do_housework_get_less_sex.htmlChristina Hoff Sommers2013-03-28T17:20:16ZDouble XGuys Who Do Housework Get Less Sex201130328003familyChristina Hoff SommersThe XX FactorThe XX Factorhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/03/28/guys_who_do_housework_get_less_sex.htmlfalsefalsefalsedudes, put down your brooms!Guys Who Do Housework Get Less SexPhoto by Pedro Ladeira/AFP/Getty ImagesDude, put the brooms down.Oh, Come On, Men Aren't Finishedhttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/intelligence_squared/2011/09/oh_come_on_men_arent_finished.html
<p> For most of human history, men have been the dominant sex because of their capacity to compete, take risks, conceal emotion, and fight for resources. But some claim these masculine traits have become obsolete in the post-industrial, knowledge-based 21<sup>st</sup> century,. Now, it's the empathetic, socially intuitive fairer sex who reign supreme because <em>those </em> inbred traits have become integral to the modern economy. Men, we've been told, are pass&eacute;.</p>
<p>Don't believe this fantasy. Women are joining men as partners in running the world, but they are not replacing men and never will. Yes, women are flourishing in unprecedented and gratifying ways. But men have hardly vanished from the center. After almost 40 years of gender neutral pronouns, it is still men who are more likely than women to run for political office, start businesses, file for patents, tell jokes, write editorials, conduct orchestras, and blow things up. &nbsp;Males succeed and fail more spectacularly than females: More males are Nobel laureates and CEOs. But more males are also in maximum security prisons. Males commit most acts of wanton violence, but it takes other men to stop them.</p>
<p>The male declinists seem to imagine a world of busy, consensus-building women, happily and competently interacting and managing the new economy. They point to the explosion of jobs in the caring, nurturing, and communicating professions: nurses, social workers, veterinarians, website designers, personal coaches, dance therapists, executive producers. Sorry to disturb this idyll, but you cannot sustain a network of nurturers and communicators without someone paying for it. You will still need hard-driven innovators, manufactures, builders, and transporters—not to mention the military.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>
<p>We are told that toughness and assertiveness are obsolete. That is ridiculous—and brings to mind an observation usually attributed to George Orwell: &quot;We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.&quot;&nbsp; The world is as dangerous as ever. Think of China with all its millions of unattached young men, or those volatile patriarchal societies where radical Sharia law prevails. Our civilization still depends on the protection of brave men (and some women) who are willing to fight and die to protect us.</p>
<p>Hanna Rosin's <em>Atlantic</em> article, &quot;<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/"><em>The End of Men</em></a>,&quot; concedes that men are still at the top of the pyramid—but says that &quot;men's hold on power in elite circles is loosening.&quot; Loosening, yes, but there is no evidence of a female takeover. Not because women lack the talent—women can be as dazzling as men when they set their mind to it. But fewer women than men <em>do</em> set their mind to it. The sexes are equal but exercise that equality in different ways. </p>
<p>Consider science and technology. Women now hold the majority of college degrees and jobs in psychology, biology, and veterinary medicine. Here, they're not just competitive with men, they show signs of overtaking them. But those numbers don't hold in math, physics, computer science and engineering, where men still prevail. In those fields, there's no sign of significant change. According to a recent study from the Commerce Department, men held 70 percent of computer science and math jobs in 2000 and 73 percent in 2009. There are brilliant women who are mathematicians and computer scientists, but all the evidence suggests women prefer to do other things with their talents. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, men continue to file more than 90 percent of patent applications. They drive innovation in technology—and not just with basic hardware. Bill Gates achieved global dominance by designing computers with a friendly, approachable interface. Steve Jobs displaced him by creating elegant, intuitive super-machines that were small enough to fit into an evening bag. A guy named Doug came up with the touchy-feely idea of the mouse. The social network is dominated by women but it was invented by Mark Zuckerberg. </p>
<p>Is the technology industry finished? Is engineering finished? Is the military finished? I haven't even mentioned that men hold the lion's share of dangerous, dirty, and necessary jobs that few women seem to want. Men tend to be the truck drivers, builders, oil-rig workers, roofers, loggers, coal miners, taxi drivers, and window washers. Are those jobs pass&eacute;? </p>
<p>Why, then, are we even having a debate about man's demise? Because we're living in a society that's enamored with the &quot;WAW&quot;, or &quot;Women are Wonderful&quot; phenomenon. WAW, a kind of reverse female chauvinism, is everywhere. Magazines, TV shows, newspapers, and even scholarly journals run endless stories and articles claiming women are the better sex. Women, we are told, are superior leaders and communicators. They're also more charitable, empathetic, and noble than men. The rules of the WAW game make it impossible for men to win: If women do something better than men, that is evidence of their superiority. If men outperform women, that's proof of invidious discrimination against the fairer sex. </p>
<p>To violate the spirit of WAW is to invite havoc. Suggest, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2112570/">as Larry Summers did</a>, that men may have some innate advantages in science and math, and prepare to change your job. Write a book or article titled <em> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0057DCG48/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=slatmaga-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=217145&amp;creative=399373&amp;creativeASIN=B0057DCG48">Are Men Necessary?</a>, </em>&quot;The End of Men,&quot; <em> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0810998297/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=slatmaga-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=217145&amp;creative=399373&amp;creativeASIN=0810998297">Man Down</a>,</em> or <em> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1580621244/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=slatmaga-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=217145&amp;creative=399377&amp;creativeASIN=1580621244">Women are From Venus, Men are from Hell</a></em>,&quot; and the gods smile. </p>
<p>The idea that men are finished is absurd. But it <em>is</em> true that minimally educated men are in serious trouble. Girls do better than boys in school. They get better grades, score higher on reading and writing tests, and are far more likely to go to college. The reasons for girls' educational success are complicated and likely reflect innate differences to some degree: Teenage girls, for example, tend to sit still and pay attention better than teenage boys. But whenever anyone comes up with a plan to help boys in the United States—boy-friendly classrooms, all-male academies, or vocational education tailored to their interests—women's groups such as the American Association of University Women and the National Women's Law Center cry foul and go on the attack.</p>
<p>Several years ago, Hasbro Toys tested a furnished playhouse it was considering marketing to both boys and girls. But it soon became clear that that girls and boys did not interact with the structure in the same way. The girls dressed the dolls, kissed them, and played house; the boys catapulted the toy baby carriage from the roof. A Hasbro general manager came up with a brilliant explanation: <em>Boys and girls are different</em>. I would add that when they grow up, they complement one another. When parents take a child to a jungle gym at a park, the mother typically says, &quot;Be careful.&quot; The father, &quot;Can you get to the top?&quot; Today it's fashionable to claim that we no longer need the catapulters or the &quot;can you get to the top&quot; crowd. But we do.</p>
<p>The cartoonist Nicole Hollander once asked, &quot;Can you imagine a world without men?&quot; Her answer, &quot;No crime and lots of happy fat women.&quot; Well, crime would certainly decline, and we'd probably put on a few pounds. But would we be happy? Not most of us. Women, alas, love men, and need them. They are our fathers, husbands, sons, brothers, and friends. Their fate is our fate—this is no zero-sum competition. </p>
<p>Men are not finished because neither men nor women will permit that to happen. After all these years, it turns out women need men much more than a fish needs a bicycle. </p>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:17:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/intelligence_squared/2011/09/oh_come_on_men_arent_finished.htmlChristina Hoff Sommers2011-09-15T18:17:00ZWomen are joining men as partners in running the world, not replacing them.News and PoliticsWhy Christina Hoff Sommers will argue men aren't finished at the Sept. 20 Slate/Intelligence Squared live debate.2303907Christina Hoff SommersIntelligence Squaredhttp://www.slate.com/id/2303907falsefalsefalseWhy Christina Hoff Sommers will argue men aren't finished at the Sept. 20 Slate/Intelligence Squared live debate.Why Christina Hoff Sommers will argue men aren't finished at the Sept. 20 Slate/Intelligence Squared live debate.Women&nbsp;might be pulling&nbsp;ahead in some industries, but men still do the bulk of dangerous work